B

Bob_Read

Guest
Sam: Believe me. We know. In fact I feel a little ad nauseum just thinking about it.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,574
1,352
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Bluster! The sort of reply I expected.

I'm nor "expounding any "beliefs" and you know it. I am pointing out evidence to you which you do not like, Sam. You have never addressed the evidence i pointed out to you properly.
As for the nonsense about the "invisibler horizon? Yet again, you expose your lack of practical knowledge. Your interpretation of Captain Lord's evidence

"we had been making mistakes all along with the stars, thinking they were signals. We could not distinguish where the sky ended and where the water commenced. You understand, it was a flat calm. He said he thought it was a star "

perfectly illustrates your lack of practical knowledge. Of course they could not see the horizon with the naked eye.
If you had ever been at sea on a pitch-black, flat, calm night, you would recognise immediately what Lord was describing. I have pointed this out to you ad nauseum... that is why old sextants were equipped with a series of inter-changeable telescopes. I can assure you yet again, that on such a night as was, unless there was a haze on the horizon...an observer would see it clearly with a good telescope or binoculars. Obviously Groves did not agree with you:

"- No, you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished but you could see stars right down as far as the sea."

If you can "see stars right down to the sea, then you can see where the sky ends and the sea starts... it's called the horizon, Sam.

For your information, unless an observer's eye is drawn away from the normal line of sight, that observer is looking directly at his or her horizon or slightly below it. Any experienced lookout will tell you that. A haze can only be seen if the particles or surfaces of something are reflecting light in the direction of the observer. That is why, on a pitch dark, overcast but clear night, you can enter a fog bank before you know it. Have you ever seen the Log Book entry " Overcast, and clear"? If so, how is that determined?[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mar 22, 2003
6,476
1,740
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
>>I can assure you yet again, that on such a night as was, unless there was a haze on the horizon...an observer would see it clearly with a good telescope or binoculars.<<

I can assure you that you weren't there. I have no interest in your convoluted explanations for what Lord or Groves said. Their words speak for themselves.
 

Mark Baber

Moderator
Member
Jul 4, 2000
6,354
371
433
Moderator's hat on:

An inappropriate personal criticism has been removed, as has the response.

Stay focused on the subject and avoid ad hominem comments.

Moderator's hat off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,574
1,352
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
I can assure you yet again, that on such a night as was, unless there was a haze on the horizon...an observer would see it clearly with a good telescope or binoculars.

Sam, when words are spoken, they only have meaning and the desired result when they are clearly understood. I fail to understand why it is that an explanation of something that is so common place at sea on a dark night by a person who has witnessed such a thing can be described as "convoluted".
Are you suggesting that a pitch black, clear night and morning such as was the case at that place on 14th/15th April, 1912 was somehow different from exactly the same conditions anywhere else on the ocean then, before then or since then?

However, this thread is about assistance.

The ability of a ship to render assistance to another ship in distress is governed by a number of factors, not the least of which is the distance separating the two vessels. The ability for Stone and Gibson to see the horizon and anything on or almost on it. is crucial to establishing the distance between Californian and the sinking Titanic.
For a host of convoluted reasons which you are very much aware of, you refuse to engage in proper debate on the subject of separation distance between these two vessels. I will therefore bury the dead horse since continuing to flog it will not improve your perception of reason.

In the not-too-far-off future (hopefully with a hazy horizon) I will be casting off for good. I post on these pages for two reasons. These are, in order of personal importance:
1: For a great deal of enjoyment being in contact with my fellow(or is it person?) humans and
2: With a genuine desire to share my knowledge. but not to pass on the knowledge of others or to gain "Brownie points".

I have written but one "tongue-in cheek" factual book about the subject which, as far as I know, has never been read, so my reasons for posting are not financial. I did write a novel about it, though.

For the record: I am not obsessed with the subject of the SS Californian...just annoyed that the subject has never been properly analysed without treating it like a giant tortilla, the filling of which includes romance, gossip, speculation and outright blatant ignorance of the subject of seafaring.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,574
1,352
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
>>I can assure you yet again, that on such a night as was, unless there was a haze on the horizon...an observer would see it clearly with a good telescope or binoculars.<<

I can assure you that you weren't there. I have no interest in your convoluted explanations for what Lord or Groves said. Their words speak for themselves.
No, I was not there, but here is the sworn evidence from an eye-witness who was there regarding the conditions prevailing about 40 miles east of the wreck site and 2 hours before Titanic hit the iceberg. Do you think this witness was mistaken too?
"at that time you could see the stars rising and setting with absolute distinctness."
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,476
1,740
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
There is a difference between seeing a star extinguish as it sets and seeing a clear dividing line between sea and sky right on the "visible" horizon. Furthermore, don't confuse a view from only 4 feet above the water to one at 45 feet or more above. As Groves said, "No, you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished but you could see stars right down as far as the sea."
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,574
1,352
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
There is a difference between seeing a star extinguish as it sets and seeing a clear dividing line between sea and sky right on the "visible" horizon. Furthermore, don't confuse a view from only 4 feet above the water to one at 45 feet or more above. As Groves said, "No, you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished but you could see stars right down as far as the sea."
No confusion here. These were the words of one whose day job was to constantly scan the horizon... Charles Lightoller:
"13523. What was the weather? A:- Perfectly clear and fine.
3616. You said it was a pity there was not a breeze?
- Yes, I said, "It is a pity there is not a breeze," and we went on to discuss the weather. He was then getting his eyesight, you know, and he said, "Yes, it seems quite clear," and I said, "Yes, it is perfectly clear." It was a beautiful night, there was not a cloud in the sky. The sea was apparently smooth, and there was no wind, but at that time you could see the stars rising and setting with absolute distinctness.
13617. On the horizon? A: - On the horizon.
 
Mar 22, 2003
6,476
1,740
383
Chicago, IL, USA
www.titanicology.com
Your pushing this on the horizon business so you can claim that the flashes from the rockets of Carpathia were seen precisely on the sea horizon so you can then use a geographic range table for max distance between a light and an observer. Of course, the height of light we are talking about here is that of an exploding distress signal throwing stars. But if they were literally just flashes on the sea horizon, then they could not have been identified as rockets up in the sky as Gibson said they were.

Again, you confuse seeing stars setting (or rising) with the ability to see a sharp horizon line as during nautical twilight, something that is needed to accurately take a set of star sights. From the bridge of Californian the height of eye was about 45 ft. The dip of the sea horizon was about 6 arcminutes, or about 1/5 the diameter of a full moon; a very tiny amount. But according to Capt. Lord and 3/O Groves, one could not actually "define where the sky ended and the water commenced (Lord)" and "you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished (Groves)", although they both, like Lightoller, said that they could see stars low down on the horizon setting or rising. (And please don't tell me that they were just talking about naked eye observations.) Seeing a flash from a rocket right on the horizon means there was no discernable vertical angle, the angle from the horizontal was 0°. I think I posted this before, but it is from Table 15 out of Bowditch. But, of course, you will not like the results because it places Carpathia much closer to Californian at 3:20am than you are willing to accept.
1572370092944.png
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
289
278
This is the subject of endless debate but what I fault the Californian for is not even attempting to respond.
I think that is the point of the case against Californian ?
Would the opinion be that. Californian should have attempted to respond to the rockets immediately and proceed in the direction to them whether or not they had success in contacts by contacts by the Morse Lamp, Marconi Wireless , or an other means at attempts at contacts with the ship in question ? In other words should Californian get underway immediately ? " Let's go see if we can get close enough to see if we can find out what those rockets are all about ! " ?.

Or......." We're reasonably safe here. We've stopped here because of the ice . Considering that and the darkness, wouldn't it be risky to get underway at this time ?"


I think that is the fault of some of us (self included ).......That old quote of Willie Keith in "The Caine Mutiny" ......" But you weren't there ! ".
 
Last edited:
B

Bob_Read

Guest
Jim Currie will never concede that the Californian had any obligation to investigate what they saw. So that’s one man’s opinion against every other authority I know of. Take your pick. I have chosen and have rendered my judgment. Further argument will not change my mind. The Californian has been weighed in the balance of my notion of due diligence and has been found wanting. I will not be baited by Jim into further discussion of the matter.
 

Jim Currie

Member
Apr 16, 2008
6,574
1,352
323
NewtonMearns, Glasgow, Scotland.
Your pushing this on the horizon business so you can claim that the flashes from the rockets of Carpathia were seen precisely on the sea horizon so you can then use a geographic range table for max distance between a light and an observer. Of course, the height of light we are talking about here is that of an exploding distress signal throwing stars. But if they were literally just flashes on the sea horizon, then they could not have been identified as rockets up in the sky as Gibson said they were.

Again, you confuse seeing stars setting (or rising) with the ability to see a sharp horizon line as during nautical twilight, something that is needed to accurately take a set of star sights. From the bridge of Californian the height of eye was about 45 ft. The dip of the sea horizon was about 6 arcminutes, or about 1/5 the diameter of a full moon; a very tiny amount. But according to Capt. Lord and 3/O Groves, one could not actually "define where the sky ended and the water commenced (Lord)" and "you could not see where the horizon in the sky finished (Groves)", although they both, like Lightoller, said that they could see stars low down on the horizon setting or rising. (And please don't tell me that they were just talking about naked eye observations.) Seeing a flash from a rocket right on the horizon means there was no discernable vertical angle, the angle from the horizontal was 0°. I think I posted this before, but it is from Table 15 out of Bowditch. But, of course, you will not like the results because it places Carpathia much closer to Californian at 3:20am than you are willing to accept.
View attachment 45220
I don't need a lesson on how to use these tables or how to navigate by the stars, Sam, I was using them to navigate and "shooting" the stars on a daily basis years before you were born.
The Bowditch tables you show, despite the title, were not used to determine the separation distance between two object at sea when the VSA was so small. They were normally used to determine the distance offshore from an object on the land. If you had ever been a seafarer on the bridge of a ship, you would know that. In fact, here is the Table that would be used by Bridge Officers:
Tables 2019-10-29 001.jpg


Anyone using the above can determine the distance between objects, the heights of which above sea level are known.

I take it you did actually read the evidence, Sam. I can almost hear Lightoller saying:

"Watch my lips. What part of you could see the stars rising and setting with absolute distinctness or - On the horizon. is it that you do not understand?

Let's set the record straight before proceeding and for the benefit of those who might be daft enough to read this. Sam...

Gibson first stated : " 7579. - I saw three more rockets, Sir. 7580. - That was about twenty minutes to four.
He saw that first rocket at that distance with the naked eye, not binoculars, so he could not have identified it as a rocket per se.
At Q7596. he stated - It was right on the horizon.
Gibson also stated:

7603. Could you see any sign of a ship? A: - No.
7604. No sign of a masthead light? A: - No.
7605. No sign of a sidelight? A: - No.
7606. Nothing except these flashes? A: - That is all.

Why didn't Gibson see the masthead light of the Carpathia? After all, if both he and Stone could very clearly see the masthead light and accommodation lights of what you and others believe was Titanic and the lights of that vessel were seen for half an hour before she stopped.

I quote you from your own work: "NAVIGATIONAL INCONSISTENCIES OF THE SS CALIFORNIAN"
"the DR stopping point for Californian was at 42° 02’ N, 50° 07’ W, three miles further south than what was eventually put in her logbook "


That position is 19.34 miles x N 28.5 W from the wreck site, not, as according to Stone et al, N 45 W of the wreck site. If they saw Titanic 's masthead light 30 minutes before she stopped, then she was 26.5 miles which is totally absurd unless there was incredible refraction. If they could see the lights of Titanic at that distance then they could also see the masthead light of Carpathia at least 20 minutes before she arrived beside Boxhall, If Carpathia was in plain sight when at Boxhall's location then those on Californian could not have missed seeing Boxhall's green flares. Carpathia saw them but those on Californian did not. These or the loom thereof would have been clearly seen from the Californian at a distance of at least 13 miles. On such a night... probably farther which means that Carpathia should have seen them at 3 am or earlier and Stone would have seen them all... first to last.

Your problem is that you work theoretically and use a form of conformation bias


I remind you of what one of the world's greatest theorists once said:
" In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

Albert Einstein".


Stars and planets set when the slip below the horizon. If you can see them setting then you can also by default, see the horizon. That, for anyone else who is unsure, is the big line on the water which hides them from you.
In practice. when on the bridge of a ship at any time of the night and day and in any conditions of weather, night you don't have to positively identify the horizon because also, in practice, when on Bridge Watch, you are staring directly at it all the time unless, of course, your eyes are drawn elsewhere.










Gibson